167:
Wales and not as a
Netherlands company. Its potential creditors are put on sufficient notice that it is covered by legislation other than that regulating the formation in the Netherlands of limited liability companies and, in particular, laying down rules in respect of minimum capital and directors' liability. They can also refer, as the Court pointed out in
185:
the Treaty on freedom of establishment are intended specifically to enable companies formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the
Community to pursue activities in other Member States through an agency, branch or subsidiary ( Centros, paragraph 26).
184:
137 However, while in this case
Inspire Art was formed under the company law of a Member State, in the case in point the United Kingdom, for the purpose in particular of evading the application of Netherlands company law, which was considered to be more severe, the fact remains that the provisions of
136:
held that creditor protection did not justify imposing additional requirements to those of the United
Kingdom, where Inspire Art Ltd was incorporated. In this case, creditors were sufficiently protected by the fact that the company held itself out not as a Dutch company but one subject to UK law. The
200:
141 To the extent that the provisions concerning minimum capital are incompatible with freedom of establishment, as guaranteed by the Treaty, the same must necessarily be true of the penalties attached to non-compliance with those obligations, that is to say, the personal joint and several liability
123:
art studio. Dutch law, however, applied to pseudoforeign companies to impose minimum capital requirements on businesses operating within the country. When the Dutch authorities required the company to comply with Dutch law, the question was whether that disproportionately interfered with
Inspire Art
188:
138 That being so, as the Court confirmed in paragraph 27 of
Centros, the fact that a national of a Member State who wishes to set up a company can choose to do so in the Member State the company-law rules of which seem to him the least restrictive and then set up branches in other Member States is
174:
136 Second, with regard to combating improper recourse to freedom of establishment, it must be borne in mind that a Member State is entitled to take measures designed to prevent certain of its nationals from attempting, under cover of the rights created by the Treaty, improperly to circumvent their
204:
142 The answer to be given to the second question referred by the national court must therefore be that the impediment to the freedom of establishment guaranteed by the Treaty constituted by provisions of national law, such as those at issue, relating to minimum capital and the personal joint and
166:
135 First, with regard to protection of creditors, and there being no need for the Court to consider whether the rules on minimum share capital constitute in themselves an appropriate protection measure, it is clear that
Inspire Art holds itself out as a company governed by the law of England and
196:
140 Last, as regards possible justification of the WFBV on grounds of protection of fairness in business dealings and the efficiency of tax inspections, it is clear that neither the
Chamber of Commerce nor the Netherlands Government has adduced any evidence to prove that the measure in question
192:
139 in addition, it is clear from settled case-law ( Segers, paragraph 16, and
Centros, paragraph 29) that the fact that a company does not conduct any business in the Member State in which it has its registered office and pursues its activities only or principally in the Member State where its
145:
133 It must be borne in mind that, according to the Court's case-law, national measures liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty must, if they are to be justified, fulfil four conditions: they must be applied in a non-discriminatory
141:
132 The justifications put forward by the
Netherlands Government, namely, the aims of protecting creditors, combating improper recourse to freedom of establishment, and protecting both effective tax inspections and fairness in business dealings, fall therefore to be evaluated by reference to
146:
manner; they must be justified by imperative requirements in the public interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue, and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see, in particular, Case C-19/92
118:
article 49). The company was incorporated in the United Kingdom, which accords to the "incorporation theory" rather than the "real seat theory" of establishing a business in conflict of laws. It wished to carry out business in the Netherlands, running an
205:
several liability of directors cannot be justified under Article 46 EC, or on grounds of protecting creditors, or combating improper recourse to freedom of establishment or safeguarding fairness in business dealings or the efficiency of tax inspections.
193:
branch is established is not sufficient to prove the existence of abuse or fraudulent conduct which would entitle the latter Member State to deny that company the benefit of the provisions of Community law relating to the right of establishment.
201:
of directors where the amount of capital does not reach the minimum provided for by the national legislation or where during the company's activities it falls below that amount.
163:
134 in consequence, it is necessary to consider whether those conditions are fulfilled by provisions relating to minimum capital such as those at issue in the main proceedings.
469:
17:
262:
235:
290:
304:
330:
276:
489:
484:
464:
175:
national legislation or to prevent individuals from improperly or fraudulently taking advantage of provisions of Community law (
318:
228:
479:
171:, paragraph 36, to certain rules of Community law which protect them, such as the Fourth and Eleventh Directives.
114:
to operate in the Netherlands was an unjustified restriction on its right to freedom of establishment (now under
197:
satisfies the criteria of efficacy, proportionality and non-discrimination mentioned in paragraph 132 above.
221:
137:
minimum capital requirements were a disproportionate method of achieving the aim of creditor protection.
342:
189:
inherent in the exercise, in a single market, of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by the Treaty.
67:
372:
99:
474:
360:
402:
8:
432:
P Dyrberg, 'Full Free Movement of Companies in the European Community at Last' ELR 528
439:– Some Realities and Some Mysteries' (2000) 48 American Journal of Comparative Law 623
213:
111:
415:
397:
110:
The art company "Inspire Art Ltd" claimed that the Dutch law requirement for a
458:
91:
354:
120:
49:
Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd
87:
Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd
177:
156:
385:
95:
251:
115:
449:
429:
M Andenas, 'Free Movement of Companies' (2003) 119 LQR 221
133:
142:overriding reasons related to the public interest.
243:
181:, paragraph 24, and the decisions cited therein).
456:
470:Court of Justice of the European Union case law
264:R (Daily Mail and General Trust plc) v Treasury
229:
292:Centros Ltd v Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen
278:Gebhard v Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano
236:
222:
306:Überseering BV v Nordic Construction GmbH
124:Ltd's right to freedom of establishment.
150:ECR I-1663, paragraph 32; Case C-55/94
14:
457:
319:Kamer van Koophandel v Inspire Art Ltd
32:Kamer van Koophandel v Inspire Art Ltd
18:Kamer van Koophandel v Inspire Art Ltd
217:
24:
25:
501:
443:
331:Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt
79:Right of freedom of establishment
490:European Union company case law
485:2003 in United Kingdom case law
465:United Kingdom company case law
244:Freedom of establishment cases
154:ECR I-4165, paragraph 37, and
13:
1:
423:
90:(2003) C-167/01 is a leading
7:
209:
127:
10:
506:
373:Demir and Baykara v Turkey
381:
369:
351:
339:
327:
315:
301:
287:
273:
259:
249:
78:
73:
62:
54:
44:
40:European Court of Justice
36:
31:
105:
100:freedom of establishment
480:2003 in the Netherlands
361:ITWF v Viking Line ABP
207:
139:
94:case, concerning the
403:European company law
343:Commission v Germany
419:288 U.S. 517 (1933)
393:
392:
346:(2007) C-112/2005
268:(1988) Case 81/87
160:, paragraph 34).
83:
82:
16:(Redirected from
497:
307:
293:
279:
265:
238:
231:
224:
215:
214:
134:Court of Justice
58:30 December 2003
29:
28:
21:
505:
504:
500:
499:
498:
496:
495:
494:
455:
454:
450:Inspire Art Ltd
446:
426:
394:
389:
377:
365:
364:(2007) C-438/05
347:
335:
334:(2008) C-210/06
323:
322:(2003) C-167/01
311:
310:(2002) C-208/00
305:
297:
296:(1999) C-212/97
291:
283:
277:
269:
263:
255:
245:
242:
212:
130:
112:minimum capital
108:
102:for companies.
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
503:
493:
492:
487:
482:
477:
475:Dutch case law
472:
467:
453:
452:
445:
444:External links
442:
441:
440:
433:
430:
425:
422:
421:
420:
416:Liggett v. Lee
411:
410:
406:
405:
400:
398:UK company law
391:
390:
382:
379:
378:
370:
367:
366:
352:
349:
348:
340:
337:
336:
328:
325:
324:
316:
313:
312:
302:
299:
298:
288:
285:
284:
282:(1995) C-55/94
274:
271:
270:
260:
257:
256:
250:
247:
246:
241:
240:
233:
226:
218:
211:
208:
129:
126:
107:
104:
81:
80:
76:
75:
71:
70:
64:
60:
59:
56:
52:
51:
46:
45:Full case name
42:
41:
38:
34:
33:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
502:
491:
488:
486:
483:
481:
478:
476:
473:
471:
468:
466:
463:
462:
460:
451:
448:
447:
438:
434:
431:
428:
427:
418:
417:
413:
412:
408:
407:
404:
401:
399:
396:
395:
388:
387:
380:
375:
374:
368:
363:
362:
357:
356:
350:
345:
344:
338:
333:
332:
326:
321:
320:
314:
309:
308:
300:
295:
294:
286:
281:
280:
272:
267:
266:
258:
253:
248:
239:
234:
232:
227:
225:
220:
219:
216:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
180:
179:
172:
170:
164:
161:
159:
158:
153:
149:
143:
138:
135:
125:
122:
117:
113:
103:
101:
97:
93:
92:corporate law
89:
88:
77:
72:
69:
65:
61:
57:
53:
50:
47:
43:
39:
35:
30:
27:
19:
436:
414:
384:
371:
359:
353:
341:
329:
317:
303:
289:
275:
261:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
176:
173:
168:
165:
162:
155:
151:
147:
144:
140:
131:
109:
86:
85:
84:
48:
26:
355:The Rosella
459:Categories
435:WF Ebke, '
424:References
254:arts 49-55
376:ECHR 1345
121:Amsterdam
409:US cases
210:See also
128:Judgment
74:Keywords
68:C-167/01
63:Citation
437:Centros
178:Centros
169:Centros
157:Centros
152:Gebhard
66:(2003)
55:Decided
386:EU law
96:EU law
148:Kraus
106:Facts
37:Court
383:See
252:TFEU
132:The
116:TFEU
358:or
98:of
461::
237:e
230:t
223:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.